Monthly Archives: April 2009

Journal of Moral Philosophy 6(2) (2009)

Posted in Articles, Journals, Notices | Leave a comment

PPPS: Why a Defensive War against Mitigated Aggression can be Proportionate

Hi Everyone,

This paper defends the view that a nation is justified in undertaking a defensive war — conceived of in terms of collective personal self-defense — against mitigated aggression. A nation committing mitigated aggression conditionally threatens — rather than imminently threatens — the lives of the citizens and soldiers of the victim nation in that it will employ lethal military force if and only if the victim nation does not submit to the invasion, the purpose of which is only to conquer and rule. What mitigated aggression threatens is a nation’s political sovereignty and cultural integrity, in short, a nation’s common way of life.


Posted in Podcast, Posts, Symposia | 1 Comment

Conference Final Call: Registration Deadline for “Themes from the Political Philosophy of T. M. Scanlon”, Manchester, 22-23 May 2009

This is just a quick reminder to say that tomorrow (Wednesday 22 April 2009) is the final day for registration for those wishing to attend the conference on “Justice, Rights and Institutions: Themes from the Political Philosophy
of T. M. Scanlon”, taking place at the University of Manchester on 22-23 May 2009.The full line-up of speakers is:

* T. M. Scanlon (Harvard University)
* Waheed Hussain (University of Pennsylvania)
* Rahul Kumar (Queen’s University, Canada)
* A. J. Julius (University of California at Los Angeles)
* Véronique Munoz-Dardé (University College London)
* Serena Olsaretti (University of Cambridge)
* Martin O’Neill (University of Manchester)
* Michael Otsuka (University College London)
* Mathias Risse (Harvard University)
* Zofia Stemplowska (University of Manchester)
* Leif Wenar (King’s College, London)
* Andrew Williams (University of Warwick)
* Jonathan Wolff (University College London)


Posted in Conferences, Notices | Leave a comment

Tanner Lectures

An online library of Tanner lectures is up at the University of Utah.

Posted in Academia, Articles, Notices | Leave a comment

CFP: 2010 Workshop in Normative Ethics

Tucson: 7-9 January 2010 | CFP: 1 June 2009

Mark Timmons (Arizona) is organising a workshop on normative ethics to be held in Tucson on 7-9 January 2010. Keynote speakers are Thomas Hill (UNC), Peter Railton (Michigan), and Holly Smith (Rutgers). From the website:

The First Annual Arizona Workshop in Normative Ethics takes place at the Westward Look Resort in Tucson, Arizona, from January 7 to January 9, 2010. Normative ethical theory addresses general questions about the right and the good and attempts to answer such questions as: What sorts of actions are right or wrong and why? What sort of person ought one to become and why? Normative ethical theories, including, for instance, versions of consequentialism, deontology, contractualism, natural law theory, and virtue ethics address such questions. The annual Arizona Workshop will feature new work in normative ethical theory broadly construed, to include not only issues about the right and the good, but meta-theoretical questions about the project of developing and defending normative ethical theories.

Posted in Calls for Papers, Conferences, Notices | Leave a comment

PPPS: Margin of Appreciation

Hello Everyone: My name is Wally Siewert. I am currently based in Santa Barbara California. The paper I would like to discuss with you concerns the European Court of Human Rights and its application of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Convention allows individuals or groups within a signatory nation to bring before the Commission (a panel of the court’s judges) complaints alleging violations of human rights by the relevant signatory government. In general (though the court’s process has changed over the years) the commission determines whether the court will accept the case and on what basis. They clarify the complaint, the issues involved, and the articles of the Convention implicated via a preliminary finding. Based on this recommendation the court itself will then either deny or take up the complaint, in the latter case requiring the government involved to respond.


Posted in Podcast, Posts, Symposia | 1 Comment